By Henry Griffiths, 3rd year, Philosophy
‘I think it’s worth it to have a cost of, unfortunately, some gun deaths every single year so that we can have the Second Amendment to protect our other God-given rights. That is a prudent deal. It is rational.’
These were the words of right-wing political activist Charlie Kirk who, on the 10th of September, became a part of his own 'worthwhile’ statistic, shot and killed while speaking at the student campus debate ‘Turning Point USA’ in Utah. The cruel irony is unmistakable: even the staunchest pro-gun activist is not safe from the dangers enabled by the Second Amendment.
In this article, I will revisit the Second Amendment in light of the death of Charlie Kirk. The Second Amendment protects the right of the individual to keep and bear arms, a principle part of the United States Constitution upon which gun laws are built. It is my belief that, in some US states, these laws are dangerously permissive. They make activism an unsafe pursuit, paradoxically infringing on the freedoms of speech it claims to support.
'I spoke to 36 students at the University of Bristol to hear their thoughts on gun laws... My findings were clear - there is a detrimental correlation between gun laws and activism.'
In Utah, as in 29 other states, citizens may carry concealed firearms without a permit. This means young adults can freely bring guns onto school campuses—no background checks, no restrictions. Furthermore, Utah has no “red flag” laws, leaving no mechanism to disarm suspicious or unstable individuals before tragedy strikes. These freedoms create an environment primed for violence. So is it really any surprise that such a tragedy took place? I’d argue not.
The modern political climate in both the UK and the US often feels inherently heated and polarized. Kirk’s campus debates revelled in this, bringing together starkly opposing ideologies often manifested as Kirk vs the young Liberal Left. Under such permissive gun-laws, it appears clearer now that violence was not a remote possibility but an inevitability – all it needed was one individual to act.
I spoke to 36 students at the University of Bristol to hear their thoughts on gun laws. I asked them how they would feel if US- style gun policies were applied on Bristol campus. Unsurprisingly, students said they would feel unsafe walking around campus.
Then, I asked them how they would feel if a high-profile political figure were shot during an event at the university. The responses ranged from a reluctance to attend any sort of political gathering, to - and this was recorded multiple times - a genuine fear in resuming day-to-day life in Bristol. Many pointed to polarising acts of activism—such as rallies over the wars in Gaza and Ukraine—as especially vulnerable flashpoints. My findings were clear - there is a detrimental correlation between gun laws and activism.
The suffering of free speech paradoxically infringes on a core right Kirk professes that the Second Amendment protects. In Bristol, a city which thrives on student-led debate, protest, and activism, the imposition would be fatal. The presence of firearms would suffocate its culture of open expression, undermining free speech rather than protecting it.
Luckily, in the UK, students do not face this kind of threat. But in the US, some argue that carrying firearms on campus is a necessary safety measure. However, this argument only reinforces the problem. Especially in states such as Utah with permissive gun laws, the Second Amendment produces the very threat it then attempts to solve. The result – without trying to sound hyperbolic – may resemble a miniature arms race: opposing sides carrying weapons onto campuses that, at any time, could erupt into a warzone at the whim of one radicalized or unstable individual. Filling schools with weaponry would only increase the chance of these weapons falling into the wrong hands, whilst making it more difficult for first responders to tell between perpetrator and self-defender.
The Second Amendment supplies both the problem and the proposed solution. At the very least, the law should prevent young people from walking into educational spaces with concealed weapons. Permits, background checks, and red flag laws are not radical infringements, they are common-sense safeguards that protect lives without stripping rights away.
Luke Buckland
Whether it be the moots of the UBLC (University of Bristol Law Club) or the humanitarian rallies outside Senate House, debate in Bristol can be loud, passionate and sometimes uncomfortable, but it is safe. That safety is what makes freedom of speech possible. If US campuses in these 29 states want that same safety, laws must be changed.
Americans may value the autonomy and protection that gun ownership seems to provide, but at the very least, restrictions are essential, especially in educational spaces filled with young, politically and emotionally charged individuals. Without them, the Second Amendment erodes the very freedoms it claims to protect.
Featured Image: Unsplash / Ethan Wilkinson
Do you think harsher gun laws are the answer to protecting free speech?
